SIOP White Paper Series

Workplace Bullying: Causes,

Consequences, and Intervention Strategies
M. Sandy Hershcovis - University of Manitoba
Tara C. Reich - London School of Economics and Political Science
Karen Niven - University of Manchester

A White Paper prepared by the International Affairs Committee of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

440 E Poe Rd, Suite 101 Bowling Green, OH 43402

With support of the Alliance for Organizational Psychology (AOP)

Copyright 2015 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc.

 SIOP White Paper Series

Special thanks to the White Papers Subcommittee of the SIOP International Af-
fairs Committee (IAC): Angelo DeNisi (Chair) and Lynda Zugec. We also wish
to express our appreciation to the IAC White Paper Series Board: John C.
Scott, Stuart C. Carr, and Soo Min Toh.

Table of Contents

Authors ................................................................................................................... 3

Abstract................................................................................................................... 4

Why Do People Bully at Work? ............................................................................... 5

Perpetrator Characteristics .............................................................................. 6

Target Characteristics...................................................................................... 6

Situational Characteristics ............................................................................... 8

What Are the Consequences of Workplace Bullying? ............................................. 9

Human Costs ................................................................................................... 9

Organizational Costs ..................................................................................... 10

Spillover/Crossover Costs ............................................................................. 10

Cultural Considerations......................................................................................... 11

What Can Organizations and Victims Do About Workplace Bullying? .................. 13

Primary Interventions ..................................................................................... 13

Secondary Interventions ................................................................................ 14

Tertiary Interventions ..................................................................................... 14

Practical recommendations................................................................................... 15

References ........................................................................................................... 16

2
 SIOP White Paper Series

Authors

M. Sandy Hershcovis
University of Manitoba
(University of Calgary beginning January 1, 2015)

Sandy Hershcovis conducts research on the psychology of workplace ag-

gression (e.g., abusive supervision, workplace incivility, workplace bully-
ing), sexual harassment, and worker well-being. She is currently coediting
a book on the research and theory of workplace aggression for Cambridge Univer-
sity Press. Her research has been published in such outlets as the Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, the Journal of Organizational Behavior, and the Journal of Oc-
cupational and Organizational Psychology.

Tara C. Reich
London School of Economics and Political Science

Tara Reich is an assistant professor in the Department of Management at

the London School of Economics and Political Science. She received her
BA (Hons, 2005) in Psychology from the University of Western Ontario
and her MA (2007) in Social Psychology and her PhD (2011) in Organiza-
tional Behaviour from the University of Manitoba. Reichs research focuses on
employee reactions to witnessed mistreatment. She has published her work in the
Journal of Applied Psychology, the Journal of Organizational Behaviour, and Work
& Stress.

Karen Niven
University of Manchester
karen.niven@mbs.ac.uk

Karen Niven (PhD, University of Sheffield, UK) is an associate professor

of Organizational Psychology. Her research focuses on emotion regula-
tion and workplace aggression, and uses a variety of methods, including diary
studies, social network analysis, and field experiments. She has published her
work in journals such as Human Relations, Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
tional Psychology, and Journal of Business Ethics, and has edited a popular sci-
ence book on emotion.

3
 SIOP White Paper Series

Workplace bullying is detrimental to employees and organizations,

yet in a meta-analytic review of studies representing a range of
countries (North America, Scandinavian, and other European), ap-
proximately 15% of employees report being victimized at work
(Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2010). Workplace bullying is de-
fined as repeated exposure, over a period of time, to negative acts
such as abuse, teasing, ridicule, and social exclusion (Einarsen,
2000). Researchers have traditionally conceptualized bullying to in-
volve face-to-face interactions; however, the increasing use of tech-
nology in the workplace has seen a rise in cyberbullying, whereby
employees may be victimized over email or social networking web-
sites (Weatherbee, 2010). Though bullying behaviors can originate
from anyone at work (e.g., coworkers, supervisors, or subordinates),
more often than not, the perpetrator has more power or perceived
power than the target (Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002).

In addition to research examining workplace bullying, a broad literature has started to

develop that examines highly related constructs, including abusive supervision
(abusive behavior from supervisors; Tepper, 2000), social undermining (negative be-
havior that interferes with a targets abilities to maintain positive relationships at work;
Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002), and incivility (low intensity deviant acts with ambigu-
ous intent to harm the target; Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Although these constructs
all differ conceptually, meta-analytic research that compares these constructs against
a series of consequences has found that, by and large, there is little to no difference in
the magnitude of consequences from these different constructs (Hershcovis, 2011). As
a result, we use terms like bullying and aggression interchangeably to refer to the
range of aggression constructs studied in this literature. Some common examples of
workplace bullying behaviors include:

Taking away responsibility from someone or replacing it with more unpleas-

ant tasks
Ignoring someones opinions
Persistently criticizing someones work
Spreading gossip or rumors about someone
Ignoring or excluding someone at work
Hinting to someone that they should quit their job

4
 SIOP White Paper Series

Over the past 2 decades, researchers have examined extensively the predictors and
consequences of workplace bullying. This body of research has found that predictors
of workplace bullying typically fall into three broad categories: (a) perpetrator charac-
teristics, (b) target characteristics, and (c) situational characteristics. Similarly, the
consequences of workplace bullying have a range of costs including: (a) human
costs, (b) organizational costs, and (c) spillover costs.

The purpose of this white paper is to examine the key predictors and consequences
of workplace bullying within each of the above categories. We will then discuss rec-
ommendations aimed to help organizations and individuals prevent and cope with
workplace bullying.

Although personality
is indeed one factor
that predicts this type
of behavior, workplace
bullying does not occur
in a social vacuum.

Why Do People Bully at Work?

This is a simple question with a complex answer. It is tempting to assume that bully-
ing is a function of perpetrator personality. Although personality is indeed one factor
that predicts this type of behavior, workplace bullying does not occur in a social vacu-
um. Rather, it occurs in the context of an organizational environment that may aggra-
vate or mitigate the incidence of workplace bullying. Workplace bullying also occurs
in the context of a relationship, and both members contribute to that relationship.
Therefore, the perpetratortarget relationship is likely to influence the enactment and
experience of workplace bullying (Hershcovis & Reich, 2013; Hershcovis, Reich, Par-
ker, & Bozeman, 2012). In this section, we will consider each of the three broad pre-
dictors of workplace bullying, and then we discuss how they might interact to form a
more complete picture of this social phenomenon.

5
 SIOP White Paper Series

Perpetrator Characteristics
A popular media perspective on workplace bullying often assumes that the main rea-
son why someone engages in workplace bullying is because, well, the person is a
bully! There is good evidence to suggest that perpetrators exhibit common, typically
negative, personality traits such as narcissism (Penney & Spector, 2002), trait anger
(Hershcovis et al., 2007), vengefulness (Douglas & Martinko, 2001), and trait anxiety
(Fox & Spector, 1999). Perpetrators are also more likely to have a history of being
targeted with bullying (e.g., Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2009). Further, the com-
mon belief that those who pick on others do so because of their own low self-esteem
seems to have at least some support in the literature as researchers have found that
perpetrators of negative workplace behaviors tend to report lower core self-
evaluations (Ferris, Rosen, Johnson, Brown, Risavy, & Heller, 2011) and lower or-
ganization-based self-esteem (Ferris, Spence, Brown, & Heller, 2012).

Although there seem to be some common characteristics of perpetrators, a large

body of research has argued that contextual factors play a strong role in the enact-
ment of workplace bullying. That is, while certain negative personality traits seem to
make individuals more reactive, workplace bullying tends to thrive in certain environ-
ments (discussed below). Therefore, designing selection systems that rule out poten-
tial employees based on personality traits may be misguided. First, employees are
unlikely to answer honestly questions about the extent to which they exhibit charac-
teristics such as high trait anger or neuroticism. Second, as we note below, targets of
workplace bullying tend to exhibit many of the same characteristics as perpetrators
(Hershcovis & Reich, 2013). Therefore, selection systems may inadvertently weed
out the wrong individuals. Third, organizations have much more control over the or-
ganizational environment that they create than they do over the personality traits of
their employees. As a result, it seems that organizational attention would be better
placed in fostering a positive work environment than in attempting to select out po-
tential perpetrators.

Target Characteristics
Research on workplace bullying and aggression has not only focused on the traits
and characteristics of perpetrators, it has also examined the traits and characteristics
of targets. Research on victim precipitation (Olweus, 1978) has argued and found
that certain employees, by virtue of their characteristics and traits, may be at higher
risk of workplace bullying than other employees. This body of research has also
found that sometimes such traits lead employees to perceive workplace bullying
where there is none.

6
 SIOP White Paper Series

Interestingly, a sizable body of research has demonstrat-

ed that targets exhibit many of the same traits as perpe-
trators (Hershcovis & Reich, 2013). This research has
found that targets tend to have higher levels of trait anger Interestingly, a
and anxiety (Vie, Glas, & Einarsen, 2010), tend to have sizable body of
higher levels of negative affectivity (Tepper, Duffy, Henle, research has
& Lambert, 2006), and tend to be more disagreeable
(Milam Spitzmueller, & Penney, 2009) compared to non- demonstrated that
targets. There also seems to be some evidence that tar- targets exhibit many
gets of workplace bullying are both higher in cognitive of the same traits as
ability (Kim & Glomb, 2010) and conscientiousness (Lind,
Glas , Pallesen, & Einarsen, 2009). These surprising perpetrators.
findings suggest that employees may punish overper-
forming coworkers in an effort to force them into lowering
the bar.

In addition to exhibiting certain traits, high risk targets

also seem to engage in certain behaviors that may ag-
gravate perpetrators. For instance, Tepper, Moss, and
Duffy (2011) found that when supervisors perceive that
subordinates are different from themselves, those differ-
ences lead to higher levels of relationship conflict, which
in turn is associated with higher levels of abuse from the
supervisor towards the subordinate. Interestingly howev-
er, this mediated relationship was stronger when supervi-
sors perceived subordinates to be lower performers. That
is, low performing subordinates seem to be at higher risk
of mistreatment from supervisors.

The idea of examining how victim characteristics and be-

haviors precipitate aggression may be viewed as victim
blaming. However, as noted by Hershcovis and Rafferty
(2012), aggressive behaviors at work occur within the
context of a social relationship, and both parties to that
relationship contribute to its dynamic. Understanding the
factors that may put employees at higher risk of mistreat-
ment is important to bullying prevention. For instance, if we know that performance is a
risk factor, then ensuring proper supervisory training to steer supervisors away from
abusive behaviors and toward more constructive performance management approach-
es is likely to both reduce abusive supervision and ultimately improve employee per-
formance.

7
 SIOP White Paper Series

Situational Characteristics
One of the most frequently studied predictors of workplace bullying is the situational or
contextual factors that might influence aggression in an organization. In fact, situational
constraints have been found to be one of the strongest predictors of workplace aggres-
sion (Bowling & Beehr, 2006).

Stressful work environments seem to fos-

ter conditions that make workplace bully-
ing more likely to occur. For example,
...Researchers have researchers have found that job insecuri-
found that job insecurity ty (De Cuyper, Baillien, & De Witte,
2009) and role stressors such as low job
and role stressors such autonomy and high workload (Baillien,
as low job autonomy and De Cuyper, & De Witte, 2011) are asso-
ciated with being both a perpetrator and
high workload are associ- a target of workplace bullying. Similarly,
ated with being both a meta-analytic findings suggest that role
conflict, role ambiguity, low autonomy,
perpetrator and a target and high work constraints (Bowling &
of workplace bullying. Beehr, 2006) are higher among targets
than nontargets of workplace aggression;
however, the direction of these effects is
not entirely clear (see, for example,
Hauge, Skogstad & Einarsen, 2011). Interestingly, Bruursema, Kessler, & Spector (2011)
found that boredom also predicts workplace aggression, suggesting that managers need
to balance workload such that employees have enough work to keep them out of trouble
but not too much work that they become reactive due to stress.

Leadership style has emerged as another important situational factor. For example, per-
petrators of workplace bullying tend to report having leaders who are less charismatic
(Hepworth & Towler, 2004) and more abusive (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007), and targets
tend to report having leaders who are less fair and supportive (Hauge, Einarsen,et al.,
2011). Noncontingent punishment and tyrannical and laissez-faire leadership styles have
also been found to relate to perceptions of bullying (Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2007;
Hoel, Glas, Hetland, Cooper, & Einarsen, 2010; Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland,
& Hetland, 2007). It seems that leaders who adopt these styles may portray a seemingly
permissive stance on workplace aggression.

Finally, meta-analytic evidence shows that workplace injustice is another key predictor of
aggressive behavior at work (Hershcovis et al., 2007). The organizational justice literature
8
 SIOP White Paper Series

focuses on three main types of justice. Interpersonal justice refers to the quality of the in-
terpersonal treatment people receive when supervisors make decisions and implement
procedures (Bies & Moag, 1986). Procedural justice refers to the fairness of the proce-
dures used to determine organizational outcomes (Leventhal, 1980). Finally, distributive
justice refers to the fairness of the actual outcomes and decisions made by supervisors
(Adams, 1965). Hershcovis et al. found that all three forms of injustice were related to em-
ployee aggression; however, interpersonal injustice had the strongest relationship with
employee aggressive behavior, followed by procedural and then distributive justice. In
other words, perhaps contrary to popular belief, employees appear to be more concerned
with the respect and dignity with which supervisors communicate outcomes and decisions
than they are about the fairness of the outcome itself. In sum, bullying behaviors seem to
flourish in workplaces that are characterized by high demands, low resources, and inef-
fectual leaders.

What Are the Consequences of Workplace Bullying?

Workplace bullying has clear significant and adverse consequences not only for employ-
ees but also for organizations and society more broadly. Below, we discuss three broad
categories of consequences: human, organizational, and spillover/crossover.

Human Costs
Targets of workplace bullying experience significant detriments to their health and well-
being. These individuals report increased psychological distress including anxiety, de-
pression (e.g., Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2010; Hansen et al., 2006), negative emo-
tions (Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Vie, Glas, & Einarsen, 2012), and overt anger (Aquino,
Douglas, & Martinko, 2004). Targets also report higher levels of burnout and emotional
exhaustion (e.g., Wu & Hu, 2009).

Recent research has also linked the experience of bullying to physiological outcomes, in-
cluding sleep problems (Niedhammer et al., 2009), musculoskeletal complaints (Vie et al.,
2012), and lower salivary cortisol (Hansen et al., 2006). In fact, several researchers have

9
 SIOP White Paper Series

suggested that targets of workplace bullying experience symptoms similar to those asso-
ciated with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2004). Mat-
thiesen and Einarsen found that victims of bullying exhibited higher levels of PTSD than a
series of non-bullied high trauma control groups (e.g., recently divorced persons, war
zone personnel). Thus, there is no question that there are serious adverse health conse-
quences for victims of bullying.

Interestingly, targets are not the only ones who suffer from and react to workplace mis-
treatment. Studies have found that witnesses also experience negative reactions to work-
place aggression, such as lower general and mental stress (Vartia, 2001), and emotional
drain (Totterdell, Hershcovis, Niven, Reich, & Stride, 2012). More recently, Reich and
Hershcovis (in press) found that employees who witness mistreatment become angry to-
ward and punish perpetrators. Therefore, it appears that incidents of mistreatment extend
beyond the target to affect others in the work environment and that, consistent with An-
dersson and Pearsons (1999) concept of an incivility spiral, mistreatment may move be-
yond the original perpetrator target dyad to involve others at work.

Organizational Costs
The human costs of workplace bullying discussed above have obvious implications for
organizations, as targets experiencing emotional and physiological impairments are more
likely to be absent due to sickness (e.g., Kivimki, Elovainio, & Vahtera, 2000; Sprigg,
Martin, Niven, & Armitage, 2010). Further, those targets who continue to attend work
demonstrate lower task performance (Harris, Kacmar, & Zivnuska, 2007; Schat & Frone,
2011), lower creativity (Mathisen, Einarsen, & Mykletun, 2008), lower organizational citi-
zenship behaviors (e.g., Harris, Harvey, & Kacmar, 2011; Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002),
and higher counterproductive work behavior (e.g., Hershcovis et al., 2012).

Organizations incur indirect costs as well, as meta-analytic results suggest that targets of
workplace bullying report lower job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and organizational com-
mitment, and higher intentions to quit (Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Hershcovis & Barling,
2010). These negative job attitudes further relate to performance outcomes (e.g., Schat &
Frone, 2011). As such, it should be unsurprising that workplace bullying in the United
States costs organizations as much as $14,000 USD per employee in lost performance
(Pearson & Porath, 2009).

Spillover/Crossover Costs
In the last 10 years, an interesting body of research has started to examine spillover and
crossover effects arising from workplace bullying and aggression. Crossover refers to how

10
 SIOP White Paper Series

one individuals experiences can influence a different individuals experiences (Westman,

2006), and thus is an interindividual phenomenon. For instance, experiences of abusive
supervision for a target (person A) may influence the attitudes of the targets coworker
(person B) toward the work environment. In contrast, spillover refers to the extent to which
an individuals participation in one domain influences his or her participation and attitudes
in another domain (Carlson, Ferguson, Perrew, & Whitten, 2011), and thus is an intrain-
dividual phenomenon. That is, an individuals experience in the workplace (context A) in-
fluences the individuals experience in another context such as the home environment
(context B). For example, experiences of abusive supervision may influence an individu-
als engagement with family activities.

Haines, Marchand, and Harvey (2006) examined

crossover effects by showing adverse health effects
on the spouses of workplace aggression targets after
controlling for a range of other stressors. Tepper
...Researchers have
(2000) found that experiences of abusive supervision found that job insecurity
affects subordinates experiences of work family
conflict, suggesting that abusive supervision can
and role stressors such
spillover into another domain. In a particularly well- as low job autonomy and
designed study, Hoobler and Brass (2006) obtained
data from supervisors, subordinates, and family
high workload are associ-
members to show that when supervisors experience ated with being both a
a psychological contract violation at work, their sub-
ordinates are more likely to report abusive supervi-
perpetrator and a target
sion (crossover) from that supervisor. In turn, the of workplace bullying.
subordinates family members are more likely to re-
port family undermining from the subordinate
(crossover). In other words, aggression can trickle
down such that when supervisors feel unfairly treated by their organizations, they may be
more likely to abuse their employees, who in turn go home and are more likely to abuse
their family members. Most recently, Carlson et al. (2011) found that abusive supervision
ultimately influences subordinate family function and satisfaction through relationship ten-
sion. This body of research demonstrates the power of workplace mistreatment to extend
beyond its relational context and beyond organizational borders.

Cultural Considerations
The prevalence estimate provided at the outset of this paper is based on a meta-analytic
review summarizing studies conducted across a range of countries (Nielsen et al., 2010);
however, these estimates vary across countries. Nielsen et al. reported that only 9.7% of
Scandinavian employees experience workplace bullying, whereas prevalence rates are
15.7% in other European countries and almost 26% in Non-European countries (primarily
11
 SIOP White Paper Series

North America). Relatedly, according to the 2010 European Work Condition Survey
(European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2010), the
percentage of employees who feel that they have been subjected to bullying or harass-
ment at work (within the past year) ranges between 0.6% (Bulgaria) to 9.5% (France).

...The percentage of em-

ployees who feel that they
have been subjected to bul-
lying or harassment at work
(within the past year) rang-
es between 0.6% (Bulgaria)
to 9.5% (France).

One reason for these differences may be due to legislation, or lack thereof. For instance,
Sweden and France were the first European countries to enact legislation to address
workplace bullying (in 1993), closely followed by Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands.
In contrast, North America has been comparatively less responsive. In Canada, only 3 of
the 10 provinces (Quebec, Saskatchewan, and Ontario) have anti-bullying legislation, with
Quebec being the first to introduce such legislation in 2004. At this writing, although sev-
eral states have attempted to introduce legislation to address workplace bullying, none of
these laws has been enacted.

A second reason for this variation across countries may be that behaviors operationally
defined as bullying in one cultural context may not be defined as bullying in another
(Bond, 2004). According to Nielsen, Hetland, Matthiesen, and Einarsen (2012), the effect
of workplace bullying on subsequent distress is mainly explained by the subjective feeling
of being victimized by the bullying, and not by mere exposure to bullying behaviors (p.
42). That is, the negative effects of bullying are due to the meaning individuals ascribe to
it, which is constructed by the cultural context (Bond, 2004). Indeed, in a cross-cultural
study, Severance et al. (2013) found only two dimensions of aggression (i.e., damage to
self-worth and direct versus indirect) generalized across their study sites of Israel, Japan,
Pakistan, and the United States.

Cultural variation in perceptions of (and reactions to) workplace bullying are becoming in-
creasingly apparent. For example, a recent study by Giorgi, Leon-Perez, and Arenas

12
 SIOP White Paper Series

(2014) of workplace bullying in Italy hypothesized and found a curvilinear relationship be-
tween workplace bullying and job satisfaction; specifically, among Italian workers, job sat-
isfaction was lowest when workplace bullying was moderate. Giorgi et al. argued that, be-
cause bullying is common in Italian workplaces (Giorgi, 2009), it is normalized and may
even signal membership in the in group. Loh, Restubog, and Zagenczyk (2010) also
found cultural differences in employee reactions to workplace bullying; these authors at-
tributed the stronger negative relationship between bullying and job satisfaction among
Australian workers compared to Singaporean workers to the latters relative comfort with
an unequal distribution of power (i.e., low power distance). These differences in employee
perceptions and reactions highlight the complexity of studying workplace bullying, as well
as the need to tailor interventions to their national, industrial, and organizational cultural
context.

What Can Organizations and Victims Do About Workplace Bullying?

Below, we discuss the three distinct ways in which organizations and employees can deal
with workplace bullying: primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions.

Primary Interventions
Primary interventions focus on preventing occurrence of bullying in the workplace. Alt-
hough there have been relatively few rigorous tests of such interventions (presumably be-
cause of the costs involved in designing and implementing programs), at least two large
scale tests have been reported. Hoel and Giga (2006) tested the efficacy of policy com-
munication, stress management training, and negative behavior awareness training, in
comparison to a control group. However, no clear gains were observed across a 6-month
period. In contrast, research into the Civility, Respect, Engagement in the Workforce
(CREW) program has reported much more promising results. CREW began in 2005 in the
US Department of Veteran Affairs and involves a series of participatory exercises (e.g.,
discussions, role plays), which are designed to cultivate awareness of ones interpersonal
impact in the workplace. Studies using a robust randomized control trial design have re-
ported significant improvements in the civility of workplace behavior, sustained across 12-
months (Osatuke, Moore, Ward, & Dyrenforth, & Belton, 2009), and additional gains for
job satisfaction, organizational commitment, trust in management, and job burnout (Leiter,
Day, Gilin-Oore, & Laschinger, 2012).

Research concerning situational characteristics that contribute to the occurrence of bully-

ing may also provide fruitful avenues for future interventions. As discussed earlier, factors
such as role ambiguity, high demands, poor leadership, and perceived injustice influence
the likelihood of bullying. As such, creating systems that can: (a) ensure role clarity and
reasonable workloads, (b) offer leadership training that encourage supportive leadership

13
 SIOP White Paper Series

styles, and (c) generate policies to ensure fair and just treatment, decisions, and out-
comes may all help to reduce the prevalence of workplace aggression and bullying.

Secondary Interventions
Secondary interventions aim to provide employees with the necessary skills and/or coping
resources to deal with bullying should it occur. Although researchers have yet to test the
efficacy of secondary interventions in reducing the negative effects of bullying, recent
studies have suggested a number of potentially promising routes for such interventions.
For example, Zapf and Grosss (2001) work suggests that people who successfully cope
with bullying differ from unsuccessful copers in how they manage conflict. In particular,
successful copers are better at recognizing and avoiding escalating behavior. Similarly,
Niven and colleagues work on emotion regulation suggests that strategies that employ-
ees use to manage their own emotions in response to being aggressed against appear to
be important factors influencing the severity of consequences for employees health and
well-being. Reappraising the aggression (e.g., by trying not to take peoples actions per-
sonally) is an adaptive response, buffering the negative effects of aggression, whereas
suppressing ones emotional response and engaging in ruminative thinking (where one
continually mulls over what happened in a negative manner) are maladaptive responses,
exacerbating negative consequences (Niven, Sprigg, & Armitage, 2013; Niven, Sprigg,
Armitage, & Satchwell, 2013).

Tertiary Interventions
Tertiary interventions focus on reducing negative consequences after bullying has oc-
curred. It is crucial for organizations to respond appropriately once bullying has been re-
ported; reporting of victimization can lead to negative consequences for targets because
of poor organizational responses, such as minimizing what has happened (Bergman,
Langhout, Palmieri, Cortina, & Fitzgerald, 2002). One way the organization can respond is
to use workplace mediation, in which a third party to the conflict (e.g., an external consult-
ant or a member of HR staff) gets both the alleged perpetrator and victim together to work
through the situation in a facilitated discussion, focusing on the present and future rela-
tionships. Saams (2010) study, in which consultants were interviewed about the strate-
gies they preferred to deal with workplace bullying, identified that mediation can be useful
to prevent escalation, primarily when a situation is viewed as a conflict rather than full-
blown bullying. However, when a behavior pattern has become entrenched, mediation
may be inappropriate due to the power imbalance that develops between perpetrator and
victim. Organizations can also consider administering sanctions to perpetrators (e.g.,
moving them to a different department, demoting or even firing them); however, because
bullying cases are often he said-she said in nature, sanctions can be difficult to justify
legally.

14
 SIOP White Paper Series

An alternative, or complementary, approach is the provision of counselling or debriefing.

Usually these services are offered for targets of bullying, in which the target talks about
what happened with a professional, who then guides the target through various possible
solutions. In Tehranis (2003) review of tertiary approaches, she concluded that there is
some evidence of long-term benefits for individual victims but that there are a variety of
counseling and debriefing types and for which there is no clear evidence to suggest that
any particular approach is more effective than others. Moreover, there can be a danger
that such interventions may not allow victims to distance themselves from the events.
Counselling can also be offered to perpetrators of bullying, although this approach is
much less common.

Practical recommendations

Training to raise awareness of peoples interpersonal impact in the workplace may

help to promote a more civil work environment
Training can also provide employees with the skills to cope with stressors and to regu-
late their emotions in the workplace, to reduce the chance of bullying occurring and to
promote more adaptive responses to conflict, should it occur
Organizations should foster a positive culture and eliminate situational factors that pro-
mote workplace aggression, such as work overload, role ambiguity, and workplace in-
justice
Manager training should be provided to ensure that managers are fair and supportive
to reduce the likelihood of bullying and to empower employees to feel able to report it
Managers must also acknowledge bullying as a real issue in the organization and ex-
plicitly support interventions or training programs if they are to succeed
Clear policies and standards for acceptable behavior should be set and communicated
within organizations, with clear procedures for reporting of and dealing with incidents
Workplace mediation may prove a useful intervention strategy early on in a conflict sit-
uation and in cases where there is not a clear power imbalance between the perpetra-
tor and victim
Offering counselling or debriefing for targets (and even perpetrators) of bullying can be
helpful, but such interventions must focus on adaptive coping to avoid trapping targets
in negative, ruminative thinking cycles

15
 SIOP White Paper Series

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in ex-

perimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267299). New York: Academic Press.
Andersson, L. M. & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in
the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452471.
Aquino, K., Douglas, S., & Martinko, M. J. (2004). Overt anger in response to victimiza-
tion: Attributional style and organizational norms as moderators. Journal of Occupa-
tional Health Psychology, 9, 152164.
Baillien, E., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2011). Job autonomy and workload as ante-
cedents of workplace bullying: A two-wave test of Karaseks job demand control mod-
el for targets and perpetrators. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psycholo-
gy, 84, 191208.
Bergman, M. E., Langhout, R. D., Palmieri, P. A., Cortina, L. M., & Fitzgerald, L. F.
(2002). The (un)reasonableness of reporting: Antecedents and consequences of re-
porting sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 230242.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness.
In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations
in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 4355). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bond, M. (2004). Culture and aggression From coercion to context. Personality and So-
cial Psychology Review, 8, 6278.
Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victims perspec-
tive: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 998
1012.
Bruursema, K., Kessler, S. R., & Spector, P. E. (2011). Bored employees misbehaving:
The relationship between boredom and counterproductive work behavior. Work &
Stress, 25, 93107.
Carlson, D. S., Ferguson, M., Perrew, P. L., & Whitten, D. (2011). The fallout from abu-
sive supervision: An examination of subordinates and their partners. Personnel Psy-
chology, 64, 937961.
De Cuyper, N., Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2009). Job insecurity, perceived employability
and targets and perpetrators experiences of workplace bullying. Work & Stress, 23,
206224.
16
 SIOP White Paper Series

Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in the
prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 547559.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace.
Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331351.
Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian ap-
proach. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, 5, 371401.
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. (2010). Eu-
ropean Working Conditions Survey, 2010. Retrieved from http://
www.eurofound.europa.eu/surveys/smt/ewcs/ewcs2010_13_06.htm
Ferris, D. L., Spence, J. R., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. (2012). Interpersonal injustice and
workplace deviance: The role of esteem threat. Journal of Management, 38, 1788-
1811.
Ferris, D. L., Rosen, C. C., Johnson, R. E., Brown, D. J., Risavy, S., & Heller, D.
(2011). Approach or avoidance (or both?): Integrating core self-evaluations within an
approach/avoidance framework. Personnel Psychology, 64, 137-161.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustrationaggression. Journal of Or-
ganizational Behavior, 20, 915931.
Giorgi, G. (2009). Workplace bullying risk assessment in 12 Italian organizations. Interna-
tional Journal of Workplace Health Management, 2, 3447.
Giorgi, G., Leon-Perez, J. M., & Arenas, A. (2014). Are bullying behaviors tolerated in
some cultures? Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between workplace bullying
and job satisfaction among Italian workers. Journal of Business Ethics. DOI 10.1007/
s10551-014-2266-9
Haines, V. Y., Marchand, A., & Harvey, S. (2006). Crossover of workplace aggression ex-
periences in dual-earner couples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11,
305314.
Hansen, . M., Hogh, A., Persson, R., Karlson, B., Garde, A. H., & rbk, P. (2006). Bul-
lying at work, health outcomes, and physiological stress response. Journal of Psy-
chosomatic Research, 60, 6372.
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. (2007). An investigation of abusive supervi-
sion as a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the
relationship. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 252263.

17
 SIOP White Paper Series

Harris, K. J., Harvey, P., & Kacmar, K. M. (2011). Abusive supervisory reactions to
coworker relationship conflict. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 10101023.
Hauge, L. J., Einarsen, S., Knardahl, S., Lau, B., Notelaers, G., & Skogstad, A. (2011).
Leadership and role stressors as departmental level predictors of workplace bullying.
International Journal of Stress Management, 18, 305323.
Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Relationships between stressful work
environments and bullying: Results of a large representative study. Work & Stress,
21, 220242.
Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2009). Individual and situational predictors of
workplace bullying: Why do perpetrators engage in the bullying of others? Work &
Stress, 23, 349358.
Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The relative impact of workplace bully-
ing as a social stressor at work. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 426433.
Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Role stressors and exposure to work-
place bullying: Causes or consequences of what and why? European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 610630.
Hepworth, W., & Towler, A. (2004). The effects of individual differences and charismatic
leadership on workplace aggression. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9,
176185.
Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). Incivility, social undermining, bullyingOh my! A call to recon-
cile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational Be-
havior, 32, 499519.
Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Towards a multi-foci approach to workplace ag-
gression: A meta-analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 31, 2444.
Hershcovis, M.S. & Rafferty, A. (2012). Predicting abusive supervision. In Houdmont, J.,
Leka, S., & Sinclair, R. (Eds.) (2012). Contemporary occupational health psychology:
Global perspectives on research and practice, (Vol 2, pp. 92108). Chichester, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Hershcovis, M.S. & Reich, T.C. (2013). Integrating workplace aggression research: Rela-
tional, contextual, and method considerations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
S1, 2642.

18
 SIOP White Paper Series

Hershcovis, M. S., Reich, T. C, Parker, S. K., & Bozeman, J. (2012). The relationship be-
tween workplace aggression and target deviant behaviour: The moderating roles of
power and task interdependence. Work & Stress, 26, 120.
Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupr, K. E., Sivanathan, N.
(2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 92, 228238.
Hoel, H., & Giga, S. I. (2006). Destructive interpersonal conflict in the workplace: The ef-
fectiveness of management interventions. Report to British Occupational Health Re-
search Foundation.
Hoel, H., Glas, L., Hetland, J., Cooper, C. L., & Einarsen, S. (2010). Leadership styles
as predictors of self-reported and observed workplace bullying. British Journal of
Management, 21, 453468.
Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as dis-
placed aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 11251133.
Kim, E., & Glomb, T. M. (2010). Get smarty pants: Cognitive ability, personality, and vic-
timization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 889901.
Kivimki, M., Elovainio, M., & Vahtera, J. (2000). Workplace bullying and sickness ab-
sence in hospital staff. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 57, 656660.
Leiter, M. P., Day, A., Gilin-Oore, D., & Laschinger, H. (2012). Getting better and staying
better: Assessing civility, incivility, distress and job attitudes one year after a civility
intervention. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 425434.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the
study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis
(Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 2755). New York,
NY: Plenum.
Lind, K., Glas, L., Pallesen, S., & Einarsen, S. (2009). Personality profiles among tar-
gets and nontargets of workplace bullying. European Psychologist, 14, 231237.
Loh, J., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2010). Consequences of workplace bully-
ing on employee identification and satisfaction among Australians and Singaporeans.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 236252.
Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2004). Psychiatric distress and symptoms of PTSD
among victims of bullying at work. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32, 335
-356.
19
 SIOP White Paper Series

Mathisen, G. O., Einarsen, S., & Mykletun, R. (2008). The occurrence and correlates of
bullying and harassment in the restaurant sector. Scandinavian Journal of Psycholo-
gy, 49, 5968.
Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2002). Basic assumptions and symptoms of post-
traumatic stress among victims of bullying at work. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 11, 87111.
Milam, A. C., Spitzmueller, C., & Penney, L. M. (2009). Investigating individual differences
among targets of workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14,
5869.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance
and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 92, 11591168.
Niedhammer, I., D. S., Degioanni, S., Drummon, A., Philip, P., Acquarone, D., Aicardi,
FVital, N., et al. (2009). Workplace bullying and sleep disturbances: findings from a
large scale cross-sectional survey in the French working population. Sleep, 32, 1211
1219.
Nielsen, M. B., Hetland, J., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Longitudinal relation-
ships between workplace bullying and psychological distress. Scandinavian Journal
of Work, Environment & Health, 38, 3846.
Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The impact of methodological
moderators on prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A meta-analysis. Journal of
Occupational and Organizaitonal Psychology, 83, 955979.
Niven, K., Sprigg, C. A., & Armitage, C. J. (2013). Does emotion regulation protect em-
ployees from the negative effects of workplace aggression? European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 22, 88106.
Niven, K., Sprigg, C. A., Armitage, C. J., & Satchwell, A. (2013). Ruminative thinking ex-
acerbates the effects of workplace violence. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 86, 6784.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC:
Hemisphere.
Osatuke, K., Moore, S., Ward, C., Dyrenforth, S., & Belton, L. (2009). Civility, respect, en-
gagement in the workforce (CREW): Nationwide organization development interven-
tion at Veterans Health Administration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45,
384410.
20
 SIOP White Paper Series

Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. (2009). The cost of bad behavior: How incivility is damaging
your business and what to do about it. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior:
Do bigger egos mean bigger problems? International Journal of Selection and As-
sessment, 10, 126134.
Reich, T. C., & Hershcovis, M. S. (in press). Observing workplace incivility. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology.
Saam, N. J. (2010). Interventions in workplace bullying: A multilevel approach. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(1), 5175.
Schat, A. C. H., & Frone, M. R. (2011). Exposure to psychological aggression at work and
job performance: The mediating role of job attitudes and personal health. Work &
Stress, 25, 2340.
Severance, L., Bui-Wrzosinska, L., Gelfand, M. J., Lyons, S., Nowak, A., Borkowski, W.,
Yamagushi, S. (2013). The psychological structure of aggression across cultures.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 835865.
Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The de-
structiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 12, 8092.
Sprigg, C. A., Martin, A., Niven, K., & Armitage, C. J. (2010). Unacceptable behaviour,
health and well-being at work: A cross-lagged longitudinal study. Institution of Occu-
pational Safety and Health.
Tehrani, N. (2003). Counselling and rehabilitating employees involved with bullying. In
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. (Eds.). (2003).Bullying and emotional abuse in
the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice. CRC Press.
Tepper, B. J. (2000) Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management
Journal, 43, 178190.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006). Procedural injustice, vic-
tim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59, 101123.
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Duffy, M. K., (2011). Predictors of abusive supervision: Su-
pervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 279294.

21
 SIOP White Paper Series

Totterdell, P., Hershcovis, M. S., Niven, K., Reich, T. C., & Stride, C. (2012). Can employ-
ees be emotionally drained by witnessing unpleasant interactions between cowork-
ers? A diary study of induced emotion regulation. Work & Stress, 26, 112129.
Vartia, M. (2001). Consequences of workplace bullying with respect to well-being of its
targets and the observers of bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, &
Health, 27, 6369.
Vie, T. L., Glas, L., & Einarsen, S. (2010). Does trait anger, trait anxiety, or organization-
al position moderate the relationship between exposure to negative acts and self-
labelling as a victim of workplace bullying? Nordic Psychology, 62, 6779.
Vie, T. L., Glas, L., & Einarsen, S. (2012). How does it feel? Workplace bullying, emo-
tions, and musculoskeletal complaints. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53, 165
173.
Watherbee, T. G. (2010). Counterproductive use of technology at work: Information &
communication technologies and cyberdeviancy. Human Resource Management Re-
view, 20, 35-44.
Weatherbee, T. G. & Kelloway, E. K. (2006). A case of cyberdeviancy: Cyberaggression
in the workplace, In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of
workplace violence, (pp. 445487). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Westman M. (2006). Crossover of stress and strain in the work-family context. In F.
Jones, R. J. Burke, & M. Westman (Eds.), Worklife balance: A psychological per-
spective (pp. 163184). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Wu, T. Y., & Hu, C. (2009). Abusive supervision and employee emotional exhaustion. Dis-
positional antecedents and boundaries. Group & Organizational Management, 34,
143169.
Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A
replication and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
10, 497522.
Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates'
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 10681076.

22